EDUARDO VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2011-01-07
No. 2D10-2641
KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
107 So. 3d 1123 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2011)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order striking the motion for postconviction relief was not a final order.


Facts & Procedural History

Eduardo Vazquez filed a motion for postconviction relief which was struck by the court for an insufficient oath. The order striking the motion was not…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
LaROSE, Judge.

LaROSE, Judge.

Eduardo Vazquez appeals an order striking his motion for postconviction relief because it contained an insufficient oath. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(e); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171, 1172 (Fla.1985); Welch v. State, 946 So.2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The postconviction court struck Mr. Vazquez’s motion without prejudice to refile a properly sworn motion within sixty days. This is not a final order. See Havens v. State, 27 So.3d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Christner v. State, 984 So.2d 561, 562-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). However, the order advised Mr. Vazquez that he must appeal within thirty days. Mr. Vazquez followed this directive and timely filed notice of appeal. To our knowledge, he did not amend his rule 3.850 motion.

In Christner, 984 So.2d at 562, we explained that a postconviction court should advise a claimant, in circumstances involving a nonfinal order such as the one present here, that the order is “not appealable at this time.” Accordingly, on remand, the postconviction court should amend its order to so provide and should also give Mr. Vazquez sixty days in which to file a sufficient postconviction motion if he is able to do so. See Scott, 464 So.2d at 1172; Welch, 946 So.2d at 650; see also Herron v. State, 34 So.3d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Dismissed and remanded.

KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw